Professors: Bush speech falls short

The consensus among local political science professors is that President George Bush discussed nothing ground-breaking or new in his State of the Union address Monday night.

Michelle Anstett

The consensus among local political science professors is that President George Bush discussed nothing ground-breaking or new in his State of the Union address Monday night.

Presidents, in their annual State of the Union addresses, “try to show all their successes whether they’re successes or not,” said Carl Sandburg College instructor of political science Jim Graham. One of the issues he thought the president tried to chalk up as an “unqualified success” is the No Child Left Behind Act, but there was no mention of “commitments to increasing educational aid.”

Tobias Gibson, a political science professor at Monmouth College, said: “The commentators afterward were talking about how they thought that (Bush) aimed low, but one of the benefits of aiming low is that you can often reach your goals.

“As a lame duck president with moderate, at best, popularity, he doesn’t have much political capital that he can build off of.”

Gibson added that Bush also seemed to attempt to appeal to both sides by touting the successes of bi-partisan actions, such as No Child Left Behind and support for military personnel.

But even the Democratic party’s response, given by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, left much to be desired in Graham’s mind. “It was very conciliatory,” he said. “As far as any real substance, it was extremely fluffy.”

As far as issues go, foreign conflicts were foremost in not only the president’s mind, but also the minds of those observing the address. When foreign conflicts were discussed, however, it left something to be desired with regards to any concrete action.

“He did say they were going to bring some troops back (from overseas),” Graham said, “but there’s no timetable.”

Gibson mentioned Bush’s stance that “Americans are against genocide in Sudan, but he doesn’t give any actual indication of what that means. There’s no policy of explanation. There’s no call to arms like there was and there continues to be in Iraq (and) as he seems to be alluding about with Iran.”

While there were mention of somewhat new ideas, such as Bush’s plan to cut government earmarks in half and his Pell Grants for Kids idea, which would give money to low-income families who wish to send their children to private or religious schools, Bush identified no specific action that should be taken. In addition, Graham feels as if Bush’s speech was partisan, but finds his lack of involvement in the upcoming elections surprising.

“Both the president and the vice president are lame ducks. George Bush has become a negative factor on the campaign trail,” he explained. “With this very low approval rating, none of the candidates are using him. Typically speaking, incumbent presidents are still part of the campaigns.”

Campus Reaction
Several Monmouth College students were asked for their reactions to President Bush’s State of the Union address Monday night.

“The president’s State of the Union made me want to stab myself in the forehead. None of it was substantive. It was the usual type of pieties.” — Bill French, senior

“I thought it was a strong point when he hit upon the Iraq war and how the tide has turned; the surge is working. It basically was a status quo State of the Union.” — Noah Emery, sophomore

“It surprised me that he discussed global climate change and actually having legislation to reduce our emissions. I’d like to hear about school funding (and) his ideas about government funds going to private schools and not public schools.” — Kate Fitzsimmons, senior